The Washington State Legislature is considering passing a bill that would allow same-sex couples in the state to “marry.” This bill is the latest, of course, in the homosexual agenda’s march to abolish the definition of marriage. Normally a bill legalizing same-sex “marriage” would be bad enough. But this bill goes a step farther and poses a clear and present danger to the religious freedom of churches. Section 7 of the SB 6239 says the following:

Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.

Let me break down this legalese. What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony. Many, if not most churches, will rent their facilities to members of the public who want to use the church building to get married. Most churches will generally ensure that the people who are using the facilities are not going to use them in a way that is inconsistent with the church’s religious faith and mission. But the State of Washington is considering forcing churches to open their sanctuaries to same-sex “wedding” ceremonies.

Lest you think this is an isolated occurrence, a judge in New Jersey recently ordered that a church must allow its facilities to be used for same-sex “wedding” ceremonies despite the church’s religious beliefs against such relationships. The Judge’s rationale in ordering the church to open its facility to same-sex “weddings” was that the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

All of this might sound surprising and troubling – and it is. But for those who understand the inherent and unavoidable conflict between the radical homosexual agenda and religious freedom, the Washington Legislature’s bill and the New Jersey church case are simply sad reminders that we face a culture and a society increasingly willing to trample religious freedom in the name of sexual liberty. Consider Chai Feldblum, President Obama’s appointed head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the EEOC). Ms. Feldblum heads the agency tasked with eliminating discrimination in the workplace. When she was asked what should happen “when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict,” she admitted, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” For those like Feldblum, the New Jersey judge, and the Washington State legislators in favor of SB 6239, the church’s freedom to follow its own religious beliefs simply do not matter. As the New Jersey judge put it, the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” Put simply, religious freedom takes a back seat to sexual liberty.

It’s not too late to stop this radical attack on religious freedom. As one court put it, the freedom of religion contained in the First Amendment is our “first freedom.” The Washington State Legislators in favor of SB 6239 need to be reminded of this fact by a vocal populace that is tired of having sexual liberty foisted on society at the expense of religious freedom. Speak Up now before it is too late. And stand with ADF as we fight these battles in New Jersey and elsewhere.

Really bad way to characterize the issue and very misleading. The church doesn’t have to recognize nor perform a same-sex marriage, rather if they offer public services they must provide equal access. Or is ADF truly advocating otherwise? For example, can a church refuse access to an interracial couple that wants to utilize its publicly funded pavilion or patio on the basis that it “violates” their sincerely held beliefs? As the US Constitution doesn’t tolerate state religion nor recognition, where do you draw the line on sincere beliefs? Could I decide to offer a public service like a wedding photographer but reject Black couples or Jewish ones in the name of my religion? The public sphere must be equal for all Americans.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Don-Gardner/1043966639 Don Gardner

the answer is very simple, do not rent to the general public. what we have here is a case of churches wanting to make money from the public society without honoring the rights of the public.

http://www.facebook.com/cherrykot Cherie Allgood

As posted in many restaurants and stores “We have the right to refuse service.”

It’s easy to use things that society, including Christians, believe are wrong. However, no one has the right to force a religious group to accept something that is 100% against their foundational beliefs. That is infringement upon our religious freedom, and the expression thereof, period. Using hypothetical situations is exactly what has harmed our country regarding legislature. Our Congress is allowing the judicial system to trample over the Constitution and our rights as specifically stated in it. Doing this sort of thing is like someone forcing you to accept something detestable to you in your home. As you have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness so do Christians. However, if someone’s pursuit of happiness infringes on someone else and their Constitutional rights, it is illegal. A church is not a public sphere, remember how adamant people are against “Separation of Church and State”? You cannot have both, and our Constitution is specific about establishment of a religion by the government. Government has no business putting their nose into church business unless someone is being abused.

precious

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”…. pretty much impossible to get around this one without making a Constitutional amendment. Telling a church they HAVE to allow someone to use their building for a homosexual union is VERY OBVIOUSLY prohibiting their free exercise of their religion. Renting out your church building is an “outreach ministry” to many churches. They use it as an opportunity to minister to the community outside their church membership (FREE EXERCISE OF THEIR RELIGION), and frequently have certain requirements of the couples wanting to get married there (Catholic churches especially have many requirements, which is their right). If the church believes the Bible requires a marriage to be between a man and a woman, then it is absolutely their right to refuse to allow their facility to be used in such a way.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BDEQXORTWHSXSLLO2UX5N2C2YA Adri

The issue isn’t interracial marriage. God even punished Miriam the sister of Moses when she objected to him marrying an Ethiopian woman. The Bible doesn’t refute interracial marriage. They’re talking about a CLEAR conflict with their beliefs as Christians against homosexuality as laid out multiple times over Scripture. If a gay rights group owned a building & Christians wanted to utilize that facility, there’s no way it would be granted & the difference is that they would have the backing of all kinds of government officials. We have freedom in this country. And that means respecting each other & agreeing to disagree all across the board. Tolerance is a two-way street.

Colby

This is shameful that this bill is actually real

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000073920495 Linda King

Wrong! Churches do not rent their facilities to “make money from the public…” Where we live the rental fees are nominal and mainly to cover any damages in the course of decorations, candles, etc. We belong to a church that uses only acapella music and none of the buildings of this church where we lived had center aisles. My daughters wanted piano, organs and a center aisle. How sad to cut off access for everyone because a church won’t allow it’s facilities to be used for the perversion of homosexual relationships.

Evans4316

This language has been removed based on public hearings. The substituted language can be found at:

I dont see why not. Race is not chosen on birth. Neither is sex. And neither is sexual orientation.

mel

Not necessarily. Sometimes it is a case of a member attending a church that is too small to accomodate all whom they would like to invite to their wedding. Sometimes a church is chosen based on where the majority of family members reside to make it more feasible for others to attend. There are many reasons and other examples I could give to explain why a church would marry a copule that does not currently attend their church.

Mark84112

Such posting does not make it law.

Mark84112

As the Washington State Senate debates the bill this evening it appears they are adopting multiple amendments to protect the religious liberty of all. With that done it appears that your concern over this bill has been addressed and that you will now be able to celebrate with us all this new expansion of civil marriage rights. Truly a win-win for all.

I find this entire hate filled article hypocritical. A *Church* is a gathering of believers in Christ. The place of gathering is irrelevant. The fact that the author places such import on the physical structure is hypocritical to say the least. In fact, it is very unChristian of him. I suggest he learn to follow true Christianity rather than his hate filled dogma.

Mark

Ahh but there’s the rub. the building you call a church is no more than that. a structure. In actuality it has nothing to do with the practice of one’s religion other than to be a entral meeting place or *community center*. The church is the actual gathering of the people, NOT the place they gather in or at.